Posted
by
Cliffon Saturday October 09, 2004 @06:23PM
from the microsoft's-worst-nightmare dept.

A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward would like to put this query before you: "I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been, but I am a fan of the x86 architecture. I really like Linux, but there are still a few issues that are keeping me from switching completely. I really like Mac OS X but I don't want to drop $2000 on a computer that is only as fast as an x86 computer at half the price. Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been ported to x86 and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

Is one of "will my hardware be compatible with OS X?" -- if I could be assured that my hardware will work as well under OS X on x86 as it does under Windows XP, then I would switch in a heartbeat, or at least dual boot. Application support is another issue, as is migrating data.

This question does not have a simple answer like "yes" or "no" or "maybe" -- there are a lot of dependencies on each answer.

I would switch in a second. OS X is by far the best OS on so many fronts that I have ever used (interface, ease of use etc, and the Unix core is nice). I'd still have to maintain a Windows boot for games, unless it was so popular most games were released for it.

Never going to happen though, since Apple make their money from hardware, not the OS.

I can't count the number of times that I've heard this asked. The obvious answer is that yes a lot of people would switch if OS X was ported to x86. But I also can't count the number of times the people who keep asking this question have been told how irrelevant it is to do so. OS X is not going to be ported, for the simple reason that if it were Apple would go under and then OS X would no longer exist.

If you need to know why that is, just google for "if os x were ported" and you'll find the same explanation on thousands of pages. I don't feel like rehashing it here.

Supposed fifty million people pirate OS X and install it on their Intel machines. That's now fifty million seats were you have a chance to sell an app like Keynote or iLife, isn't it? Okay, suppose iLife is pirated, too: that's a couple of million people who might order poster-size prints or a photo book through iPhoto, no?

If Keynote is pirated, doesn't that mean that many more people (including those who are scrupulous about buying wh

What nonsense. The iPod has formed a nice accessory to their core business. That is all. They are by no means a "media company."

Mac sales are not all that great.

You keep sinking further. Last quarter Apple reported total Mac sales of 876,000 units, a year over year increase of 105,000 units. In addition, Mac sales comprise ~90% of Apple's total revenue. Taking any step to cut down their core business would be insanely stupid.

Selling Mac OS to PC owners would be a CASH COW if they kept the price reasonable.

It would not be nearly enough to equal Macintosh hardware sales. Apple grosses about 1.8 billion per quarter selling hardware. To equate that with just selling OS X at $129, they would need to sell 14 million units a quarter. Even if a lot of people would switch, that is an unrealistic expectation.

I suspect the actual reason this hasn;t alredy happened is some hidden clause in an agreemnt with Microsoft.

Are you insane? M$ doesn't even sell 14 million copies of Windows per quarter. Are you seriously implying that you think just by entering the x86 space OS X will completely surpass Windows immediately?

You're out of date. Macs are comparable (the WSJ's Walt Mossberg even claims cheaper) in price/performance to x86 boxes. When you factor in the reduction in neck pain, the lack of truly low-end macs is easily compensated for.
OTOH, you can always get a used mac; OSX runs fine on any PPC version.
As to your question, one of the main reasons that OSX is able to be so stable and still provide all of the eye-candy is because of a very small HCL. That advantage would be lost by moving to the rather chaotic wintel platform.

I'm a Windows Admin, and live by Group Policy and remote administration tools under Windows 2000/2003 (NT4 had some stuff, but boy did it suck in comparison). I do not know what equivalent things are available under OS X or even unix/Linux. I've only installed Linux on a hobby basis (shrug).

But if I could manage them at least as well as I can with Group Policy, sure I'd switch.

It would also have to be able to run all the shrink rapped stuff we support.

I used to be a big Mac user, back 12+ years ago. So yeah, I'd love to get back to that. It sure seemed like computers were fun back then. But maybe thats becuase it was just a hobby and not my work:)

The only "issues" I have with Linux is being forced to use certain windows apps (work mostly and no, I'm not leaving a job I like just so I can delete my windows partition). I also have a Mac and yes, if MacOSX was available, I'd install it, but I wouldn't "switch" - why should I use just one OS?

The whole "switch" thing is for basic users I guess. The rest of us aren't afraid to partition a hard drive.

...and that is sad. There is no good reason that free (as in speech) operating systems should not be as good if not better than OSX, but they simply aren't. OSX is great, and Apple has a more open attitude towards their OS than Microsoft, but it is not free (as in beer or speech).

Furthermore, I regret to say that I don't see much prospect of any of the Linux GUI efforts approaching the ease of use and elegance of OS X any time soon - partially due to a lack of imagination, and partially due to being over-wedded to X which is evolving way too slowly and is over-wedded to a basic design that is simply outdated.

The open source community doesn't have as good of a reason to improve the usability as Apple does. Apple is a business and needs to make money, the various Linux gui maintainers, a community project, do not. Apple's big feature is the usability of their computers; for everyone, not just geeks. Linux vendors don't sell computers to everyday people with everyday needs; they sell to geeks who know what linux is good for. Two different target markets, two different reasons for improvements. Now I'm not saying that Linux developers aren't on the right track, which they are, and improvements can be seen throughout, but they are serving different markets.

If you don't like the way X is moving along, feel free to help. You're a veteran here, so I don't need to tell you where to find X. As a veteran, I'm surprised that you fell for a troll article like this. Although, I'm just as guilty in my response here.

As for paying for the OS, I will gladly pay Apple for their products, hardware and software. Is it more expensive? Not to me. My PBG4 has higher resale value if I ever sell it than a comparable dell/etc., I don't have to recompile and spend hours troubleshooting just to get my soundcard/joystick to work, which it still doesn't on my Suse 9.1 box, and I am more productive on my PB, I get the same things done quicker so I have more time for the things that I value in life, like playing with my dog or reading a non-sci-fi book. If you, as your primary mode of transportation, had the knowledge and resources to build a car versus buying one, what would you pick? Buy the car most likely, I would.

Furthermore, I regret to say that I don't see much prospect of any of the Linux GUI efforts approaching the ease of use and elegance of OS X any time soon - partially due to a lack of imagination, and partially due to being over-wedded to X which is evolving way too slowly and is over-wedded to a basic design that is simply outdated.

There would be NO APPLICATIONS. Mac programs are compiled for the powerpc architecture, so the binaries wouldn't work. Windows programs wouldn't work except through something like Wine, which won't work any better for Mac than it does for Linux.

The only apps you could use would be source-based unix stuff, which you can use on linux anyway, and many of which won't actually run on OS X without a lot of work first.

Since the day NEXTSTEP was ported to the 486, and possibly before, Project Builder had the ability to compile binaries not only for the Motorola 68040, but also for HP PA-RISC, SPARC, and i486. Quad-fat binaries..If you look at any of the remaining NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP archives, or search for an old OmniWeb beta, you'll find files with names like this:

Foo_App.1.34b.NIHS.b.tar.gz

That NIHS.b stands for Next,Intel,HP,Sparc-BINARY.One binary runs on 4 different architechtures. If they could do it then, with most systems (all architectures) running between 25 and 100MHz, they should be able to do it equally well now, with a narrower range of hardware to support (nVidia or ATI, x86/64 or PPC as opposed to 4 totally different approaches in respect to CPU, display hardware, bridge ASICs, etc)

There's the issue of AltiVec/SSE2, etc, but there were challenges 10 years ago, too..

They still do this, With Fat Binaries, you can ship software with G3/G4/G5 optimized binaries in the same package. What's stopping them from shipping G3/G4/G5/Opteron/i386/P4/Itanic/Whatever in a package?

The answer is Nothing. GCC supports the target. The format is built for it (it comes from next after all).

If it became possible, you can bet that Apple would make Xcode cross-compile if there was money in it.

For the past several years I have been buying nothing but Apple products for myself, coworkers and family members. I have been willing to pay a higher price for better (more innovative) physical design, less cabling, and an innovative OS. The downside has been limited hardware choices that are generally a few steps behind the curve of x86 machines.
That being said, I would seriously consider 'switching' to OS X on a x86 machine if it was produced and supported by Apple and possibly the hardware vendors.
At the same time, however, I really like the ever evolving designs that come from Apple. When was that last compelling design change of the ubiquitous x86 desktop or laptop (maybe from Alienware)? So for me to do a pseudo-switch, I would probably also need to see some changes from the hardware vendors (how many cables run across the desk of a typical workstation?).
To sum it all up, I think it would be a great thing for Apple to release OS X to the masses. It would certainly send Balmer on another sweaty spin!

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people who use their computers for just basic, simple tasks like office functions act like they have this incredible need for powerful hardware. I bought a Compaq Presario with a Sempron 2800, 256MB DDR Ram and a 80GB hdd for only $445 including S&H, and with SuSE 9.1 it does everything I need. It's not a game machine, so uhhh why exactly when it's just going to run Java and C++ programs for class, would I need the latest Athlon64 or Pentium4?

The reason for owning a Mac has never been about power, but utility. Every convert to MacOS X from Windows that I know switched because Macs are actually much more useful in many areas than Windows PCs. The hardest pill for many of them to swallow is that the "Apple way" really is significantly easier and more productive than the "Microsoft way."

The average computer user who could afford one, would actually be much better off with an iMac or iBook than a typical off the shelf PC. It gets the job done, and done well and it is made much better than the usual PC.

As a techie, I always get bombarded with "Where can I get a good computer?" questions, and I just tell people either at Best Buy for 500 bucks or a Mac.

A few weeks ago someone answered that they don't like Macs because "they like to have control that Windows gives them".So, yesterday that person needs help burning pictures off the digital camera to 3 CDs. It took us fourty (40!) minutes to burn 600 megs of data on a well equipped Windows XP machine (3.06GHz P4 HT, 512 MB RAM). This is why:

I drag the first set of files onto the CD, they burn OK (albeit a bit slow).I drag the second set of files and get an "incorrect function" error. I'm thinking WTF?I use a new CD and some drag-to-disc program comes up and burns the pictures much faster than the first CD did.I try to burn the final CD, but get the incorrect function error again. It took me 20 minutes of CD swapping, ctrl-alt-deleteing, and cussing to figure out that I had to right click on the burner icon and enable CD burning for it.Well, duh, one might say, of course you have to have the CD burning enabled. You might think so, but you'd better not wonder why the first two CDs burned, but the last one required enabling.

What I'm trying to say is that in the time it took me to burn 600 megs of data on a very well stocked Windows XP PC, I could have had the very same pictures sorted into albums, posted on my website (which runs on the same machine), and burned on a cd on a 1.4GHz G4.

Apple way might be more expensive at first, but it doesn't require you to randomly click on things to make them work. (Provided that the PC has a slew of 3rd party applications to keep it working in the first place.)

drop a few hundred dollars (or pounds) on an eMac. If you find out that you don't like it flog it on ebay - mac's have great resale values. If you find that you do like it flog it on ebay and buy a more powerful model... duh!

there's no chance that apple will release OS X for X86.... and the software developers will not stand for another platform, cpu, os change.

also, the apple mac hardware would get left behind which is where apple make the money. unless of course osx86 was a poor cousin that lacked features or support and why bother in that case.

If I can use all the apps that I like, without missing the old MS platform. That's how MS got me to switch from MacOS7 to WinNT. The key to IT decisions starts with "what do I need to do" (in simple human/business transaction terms). Then I ask "what apps do that?", then "what OS runs those apps?", and finally "which HW runs that OS?", and I've committed a basic platform. If the apps available can do what I need to do on MacOS, including work without a hitch with everyone else who hasn't switched, I'll be right there with Apple's otherwise superior OS.

You know, I've been laptop shopping twice in the last year, once for me and once for my SO. I'm a serious geek -- I spend 90% of my time in a terminal -- and make my living with my hardware, so I spent a lot of time looking. My SO isn't a geek at all, and I'm her computer slave, so whatever she got had to be easy for me to support.

I'd never used a Mac before and was originally planning to get Thinkpad and run Debian on it. Both times, hands down, we got Macs. I have a 15" Powerbook and she has a 14" iBook. Both times I spent days on every major manufacturer's web sites, comparing every model I could find.

What I found was that there is no laptop, period, that matches anything Apple makes feature-for-feature at a comparable price point. Nothing even comes close. The only way to get the features I wanted in a Thinkpad was to pay $3,500 and gain an extra 2 pounds of travel weight. The only sub-optimal feature of the Powerbook is battery life -- after a year of constant use I get about 2 hours.

This comparison was done OS-agnostic, since I expected to run Debian on the Powerbook, too. After a week, though, I swore I'd never go back. OSX is amazing. It's the first time in 15 years of professional computer use that I haven't had to *think* about the operating system.

In short, Macs rule. if you don't believe me, do the research yourself. Anyone trotting out the "Macs are too expensive and slow" line is living in the past.

Those articles are really only valid if you are stuck between buying an Apple and a Dell. And who wants a Dell?

When it comes to the high end, they may compare. Apple is certainly very competitive in laptops. But when it comes to what I can build myself out of components in the PC world vs. Apple, the Apples _are_ really expensive. The cheapest eMac runs about $800 - for that amount of money I can piece together a pretty nice PC system that's going to be far better than that eMac. Even better, that PC

I would not switch to Mac OS X, Linux+KDE runs just fine for me. But I would gladly switch to PowerPC PC if they were made in volume, like x86 PCs are. The thing is that x86, even in its 64-bit incarnation is a total hack[1]. I'm not running to upgrade to x86-64 any time soon[2].

If I had comparable prices for barebone x86-32 and PPC system/components (up to 50% more for PPC) I wouldn't hesitate a minute. As it stands now, dollar for dollar, I can buy much better x86 machine which "solves" by force most of the architectural drawbacks.

Robert

PS Just don't tell me that I can buy brand X PPC machine for the price of some Dell/Gateway high-end PC: I have never in my life bought a brand name computer, I just buy the parts and build myself whatever machine I need.

[1] luckily, most of that is well hidden behind the C compiler[2] price is not totally a non-issue;)

If I could install OSX on one of my homebuilt systems I certainly would.

However, one of the reasons Apples are so stable is because the hardware and software is so strictly controlled. Thus, either OSX would be very unstable on the X86 platform or it would not work with most hardware. Either would be a huge disadvantage.

I have a Mac that can run OS X (but runs Linux). If OS X were released for x86, I could start running it on a PC. But I wouldn't. The reason?

I have programmed x86, MIPS, and PowerPC assembly, and studied the instruction formats for these architectures. x86 is a mess.

Ever tried to use ACPI power management under Linux? Chances are it won't work, due to bugs in the BIOS. The USB controller on my old laptop wouldn't work, because the BIOS assigned the wrong IRQ to it (it said it was on 9, but it was hardwired to 11). Ever had PCs crash because of IRQ conflicts? I have.

The PC is so full of kludges it's amazing that it still works. The system starts in real mode (16 bit, 1 MB of addressable RAM). You really want to go to protected mode (32 bit, all RAM addressable). However, certain things need to be done in real mode, because BIOSes don't do protected mode. Does your hard drive use CHS or LBA?

Have you ever compared efficiencies of other architectures with x86? It's amazing how much power goes into supporting the cruft that's in x86. It's too bad the CPUs are so small, or you could use them for cooking.

Anyway, time to quit ranting. x86 is not for me. And oh, I run Linux on my iBook because I know how to customize every part of it, and because it starts applications faster than OS X. It also has more software available (a lot of software uses GNU extensions and thus requires a lot of effort to port to OS X).

Who *REALLY* is a fan of x86? BIOS should have died a long time ago. x86 is a hideous architecture with an ISA that makes all assembler code look like vomit etc. I think the only thing people like about x86 is the cost. I think the more important question is can we ever replace x86 with another architecture (I like SPARC and with Intel's R&D I'm sure we could get over any problems) but keep it as open and mix-and-match as x86 is now? Write a decent emulator and legacy code is taken care of. I'm sure OSS and it's upward trend would minimize the transition costs. But really when can we get rid of this turd?!?

1. Because Darwin runs on x86 (true), most of the work to port Mac OS X to x86 is already done.

False. Darwin is a very important part of Mac OS X, but in size it is only a tiny fraction of the operating system. The entire GUI and all of the hundreds of libraries ("Frameworks" in Mac OS X) that Mac OS X apps depend on would need to be ported, and many of these are only designed to work on PowerPC currently.

2. If Apple ported Mac OS X to x86, you'd be able to run it on a typical PC.

False. Not unless Apple is able to get every major PC hardware manufacturer to release Mac OS X drivers. Apple might have the drivers already for a basic low-end Dell, but what if you have a PC with a third-party sound card? Or a video card that's not a recent nVidia or Radeon? Or a brand-new DVD burner that's only supported on Windows? What if you have a laptop, and you want it to be able to sleep? All of this would require the cooperation of all of these hardware manufacturers, and it's not clear that they'd have any incentive to cooperate.

3. There would be plenty of applications to choose from.

False. Mac applications wouldn't run until they've been ported and recompiled for x86, and it's not clear what incentive Mac developers would have to spend all of that effort with no guarantee of returns. Windows apps wouldn't run just because it's on x86; the operating systems are too different (though porting WINE to Mac OS X on x86 would be slightly easier than on PPC). Linux apps would run the same as they already do - most popular Linux apps already run on Mac OS X natively anyway (see the fink project).

4. PCs are really that much cheaper than Macs anyway.

Sure, they're cheaper sometimes, but not nearly as much as most people think. Yes, you can build a PC yourself for a lot less than a Mac - if you know what you're doing. And yes, you can get a low-end PC without a monitor - while only high-end Macs come headless. But probably 90% of the world buys brand-name PCs with monitors. On the low end, a brand-name PC with a CRT monitor and DVD/CD-RW will be about $600, compared to $800 for the eMac (and the eMac will come with a better graphics card). A brand-name PC with a non-Celeron processor, a real graphics card (not integrated video), DVD/CD-RW, and a high-quality 17" LCD will cost $1200, compared to $1300 for the iMac (and the iMac is a fraction of the size and weight). It only gets better when you start looking at the high-end machines - you'll find that the Power Mac G5 is often cheaper than a dual-Xeon or dual-Opteron workstation.

I wouldn't switch, because I'm perfectly happy with GNOME running on a Linux kernel.

OSX is really pretty. But GNOME is pretty enough for me. I love the clean, tidy look, and the antialiased fonts. And I have chosen a desktop theme that I like.

OSX is really stable. So is GNOME.

If you want to try out GNOME, the best way is to install Ubuntu Linux [ubuntulinux.org] on a spare computer. (It doesn't have to be a brand-new computer, but the older and funkier the computer is, the greater the chance of a problem.)

The easiest way to try out GNOME is to get a Gnoppix [gnoppix.org] CD. You boot from this CD and it will run GNOME on a Linux kernel, without touching your hard disk in any way. So you don't risk your data. And by the way, this makes a great disaster recovery tool, even if you are a Windows user and you aren't ready to switch yet.

I'll bet there is someone writing a "KDE works for me" posting right now too. KDE is also a good environment, although I personally prefer GNOME. To try out KDE, you could get a Knoppix [knoppix.org] CD. This works the same way as Gnoppix (and in fact Gnoppix was derived from Knoppix, not the other way around).

In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce [xfce.org], whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX.

Of course, if it was free, or could be easily pirated, and it worked as well on my computer as Linux currently does, I would switch. But thats not accurate.

First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now. Those are for people who have already paid their dues to Apple by buying a Mac. If it was any good, an x86 Mac OS port would wipe out a fair share of Apple's current hardware sales. Even if they could, say, double their current OS market share by running on cheaper commodity hardware, they would still need to make half the profit on each new, non-upgrade copy of x86 Mac OS that they currently make on the average new Macintosh sold. I would be very surprised if they could make this up with a retail price under $400. I definitely wouldn't pay $400 or more for it, as slick as it is, and compared to free Linux and "free" preloaded Windows I doubt many other current PC users would, and it would never be a market success for Apple if only existing Mac users bought it.

And thats all supposing that the product is every bit as good as the current version of Mac OS for Apple hardware. That means that they would have to support seamlessly every possible combination of PC components that could show up on a computer made in the last 3 or 4 years. Darwin x86 certainly can't do that now, and even if they could port over every current FreeBSD driver, plus support every video chipset they support on Macintoshes now, it would be far from universal, although it would be good enough for me. Microsoft spends a lot of money on testing and driver development to ensure Windows works on every wacky system they claim it will run on, and that is even given that most of the device drivers are written by vendors.

Given these constraints, I don't think Apple can bring a viable x86 Mac OS port to market at a price low enough to be successful, so no matter how cool you think it would be to have OS X on your computer, it isn't going to happen.

I'm one of the comparatively few people here to have extensively used NeXTStep (the direct precursor of OS X - the core OS technology is still the same) on Intel hardware, back in the day when Linux was a freaky pile of small-rodent crud, Macs were "Win3.11 with an attitude" abominations and no other alternative to the evil empire existed.

A lot of postings here have tried to make points like "Steven Jobs hates untidy hardware" or "they couldn't make it work as neatly on x86 machines as they do on PPC rigs they build themselves", or even "they can't make it work on x86".

The first is perhaps be true (good for him if it is), the second might just be the case (but I seriously doubt this), and the third is certainly absolute rubbbish.

Granted, a lot of time has passed since then, and OS X is certainly more than NeXTStep 5 (as some diehards like to call it). But the nasty fact remains that the technological foundation of NeXTStep/OS X is enormously more stable, robust and inherently cross-platform than that of Windows in all its assorted versions of degeneracy. The Intel port of NeXTStep was perfectly useable and delivered all the comfort and useability to this new platform (and two more, actually - Sparc and HP builds also existed). You could not use arbitrary hardware (only that which had NeXTStep drivers), but that hardware was rock-solid, and given the availabilty of the excellent DriverKit the only reason other stuff wasn't supported was the lack of device information from the vendors (which is more readily available nowadays, partly due to Linux).

In short: if Apple wanted to pull this off (BIG if), the technological underpinnings would be there, and if it worked half was well as NeXTStep (which is pretty likely) technological issues would be the least of it. It's just not very likely from a marketing perspective, that's all (a shame, really, but what can one do...).

I have a hard time seeing how anyone familiar with the x86 architecture and just about any other recent processor architecture can be a fan of the x86. The x86 architecture is ugly and irregular, the result of decades of backwards compatibility. The performance such CPUs is where it is now because x86 instructions are interpreted on the fly into something decent, and I really wish that AMD and Intel would make those architectures public, so that all that chip real estate could be devoted to something other than backwards compatibility and so that compiler writers would never have to deal with the x86 again.

ObOSX: Yes, I would, assuming that drivers that can make full use of all the hardware I currently have were available. I'd be inclined to set up dual boot (OS X and Linux).

Maybe I missed it, but not many people seem to have expressed what I feel about the issue.

I don't know if the post was an observation balloon from Apple, but I hope they don't listen to/. folks on the issue. They, or Steve Jobs, must remember what happend to Apple when it was still called NeXT.

Everybody was envious and awe-struck by the beauty and ease of use and the power in NeXTSTEP. Everybody who's ever seen it work wanted it on his desk. But the hardware was prohibitively expensive. So, when they figured out that their hardwares were not selling, they stopped selling the hardware and ported the OS (whatever it was called or however it was capitalized at that time). That should have prompted bunch of nerds jumping to the NeXTSTEP, which never happened.

Things may be different these days, PC hardware may be more or less uniform and easier to support. If *BSDs support certain hardware, they may not have to worry about them. The compiler is gcc which is available for ton of architectures. So, softwares available for OS X/ppc should be available for OS X/x86 easily.

On the other hand, the experience you get from Apple hardware in combination with OS X will not be the same as OS X on x86 hardware. Does anybody notice how this brushed metal look in OS X corresponds to their current displays? Do people honestly believe that OS X would look as nice as on a PowerBook when it is on a Dell/Toshiba laptop?

Also, despite the myth, Apple hardware is not much more expensive than those in the x86 world. Still, they are not selling very well.

Considering the above, I highly doubt that those who said they would switch with a heartbeat will actually switch when OS X became available on the x86 hardware. They may as well complain why they have to pay $150 when Windows comes with the hardware or they can get Linux for free. I'm afraid that the momentum that an OS has on people is so much bigger than one would think.

If you listen to the debate about one button mouse or menubar on top of the screen, it's all about which way they learned first:( Most people do have hard time changing habits, and they think their ways is the right way. So, I think very few people would switch even when OS X became available on x86. Those who will switch should have switched by this time or they will switch at the next computer purchase regardless of which architecture the OS runs on. Actually they don't even have to switch. Why not have two or more OSes running on different computers at the same time?

I would be more than ready to drop 300$ on OS X for x86!I've been saying so for months.

But, honestly, i don't think it will ever happen. Why you ask? Although it really sucks that apple sell hardware monopolistically, it's one of their greatest advantages. Why? well since they don't offer that much hardware, they don't have to bother with all the support. Do you think microsoft appreciates having to support all those stupid OEM devices whose drivers only differentiate on a couple bytes? Hell no. I'm sure microsoft wet dreams about controlling the hardware market as well. Well, more tightly than it already does so it only has to spend minimum amounts on hardware support.

Apple being a small company, cannot put forth all the ressources to support the amounts of hardware there's available for PC. Selling OS X for x86 would force them to, and i don;t think Apple is courageous enough to risk that.

It's a shame, because, i really would buy OS X for PC, and i'd even give them tip.

Apple cannot do this. For multiple reasons that have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with marketshare and market forces.

If Apple were to switch, it would start at point zero, with no applications, just as it did in 2000 with the Mac OSX public beta. It would not even have the Classic layer to run the old Mac apps, although that is less of a concern these days. These days Mac OSX on x86 would either have to have some very fancy easy to use WINE like environment, so that Windows users could use their current apps until OSX equivalents came along, or run Windows in a VMWare like environment.

Also, you would have to kiss MSOffice for OSX goodbye. You, as an OOo user might think this is insignificant, but it sure as hell isn't to those who use it.

Then, there would be the hardware problem that people like the article author always always forget. Apple makes most of its money from hardware. Do you think Apple would still make as much money and sell as many units if the OS was able to run on x86 commmodity hardware? Obviously not. That would force the price of the OS up. How many newbies would then pay for the OS?

Talking of newbies, how many of the gazillions of windows users who currently have never heard of OSX, or think OSX is still the same crap they used back in 1995, will fork over $100 plus for an OS without Office, without games and without other pro applications? I seriously doubt that Apple's pro apps like FCP and Logic alone are enough to sustain the platform, not to mention the intensely pissed off current users on PPC.

That means that the only people buying OSX on x86 would be geeky types like those here who are so fucking stingy (and I don't mean poor - I'm poor yet I use a Mac because it's so good) that they bitch about a $100 price difference in a computer. The vast majority would not use OSX or even think about switching.

Apple's only recourse in this case would be to make an x86 mainboard, using a special OpenFirmware with no bios, such as current Mac mainboards do, to make it incompatible with other x86 machines so that it would not encroach on Microsoft's Windows territory too much and so that it would keep users from using other x86 hardware.

And the advantage of that over its PPC platform is right around zero, so why even think about it.

Apple could have done this exactly once in the past. Back in 2000 when everyone was started to switch to OSX and there were no OSX applications for the new OS, Apple could have gone with a proprietry x86 motherboard and kept on producing a few last PPC machines until their classic MacOS users had switched and there were enough new OSX apps. That time passed as soon as new apps started coming out for OSX and people started investing money in them.

The only thing Apple could possibly do to make money on x86 these days is possibly port its Cocoa frameworks and devtools over to windows to compete against MS'.Net stuff, but here again, who would actually buy this?.Net is far enough advanced that it is the king of Windows and no big shops would move to Cocoa.

I am so so fucking tired of some one night wonders asking this same stupid question, when it is so obvious that it is just a geek cheapskate wet dream.

Software:Jobs did it in the past, supply Fat Binaries of the software, that run on(yup) multiple architectures(Nextstep ran on PPC and x86, a single application could run on either system.) the same idea would happen hear, keep OS X on ppc, while selling hardware, but supply to developers(in droves, give it away like CANDY to anyone who has taken a CS class, try and flood the market for the new sytem) the x86 system for development of fat binaries.

Port all inhouse software to fat binaries, and let longtime developers get free advanced copies of the OS to develop on, etc.

Userbase:Have a long developer-only release... lots of beta and make sure that the x86 version is superior to longhorn, and release BEFORE longhorn.

While handing out OS X86(clever, ay?) to developers and creating a buzz, turn your back on piracy. LET the piracy nuts get copies, let them be beta testers and buzz spreaders.

Apple could make the OS source code compatible with many, if not most/all software for porting. They have done it before with Next, it CAN be done.

How would it work? Well, Apple would need to merge towards a software company. Buy a few more pro apps and secure a nitch. Then, Apple would have to strike pre-announcement contracts with atleast 1, if not 2+ OEMs to sell the systems on... IBM and Sony would be the most obvious. Get them to be able to sell systems when the 1.0 gets released.

My Opinion:Would it work? Iffy, I would say the Jobs could do it if he took both of Apple's feet and dove 100% into the plan. He would completely gamble the companies 4+ billion dollar savings, and maybe survive. I own a 12" powerbook and I think that owning the hardware makes the system better. Yes, it could(maybe) be done. No, I don't think Jobs would do it. Yes, I would support apple if they actually were that gutsy.

Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been ported to x86 and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

For starters, OSX is tight because buying a mac is much like buying a console gaming system. All the hardware is pretty much going to be the same across the board. They do not have to worry about compatibility and bugs regarding AMD, intel, SiS, and hundreds of other hardware vendors. This, in my opinion is why Apple's systems are slightly more stable than your average Windows box. I say this with the assumption that both the OSX and XP boxes are unmaintained and run by users who do not keep their systems optimized.

I would not run a x86 Darwin, personally. Linux serves all my non-gaming needs as it is, and in my opinion, is a superior OS compared to Darwin. I don't really feel like typing up the many reasons for this, but I see no point in doing something less with something that costs more.

As for XP versus OSX.. I can't say much, except there is an enormous supply of business software and games. It would take many years for OSX to catch up. As much as people hate to admit, Windows 2000/XP are the standard for business workstations. Save yourself the responses like "I AM A DEVELOPER AND I USE LOONIX", as you are not the standard. I am speaking of the masses who do data entry, clerical, medical, and other types of work.

BTW, if you have not bothered to take into consideration, Longhorn is far from a finished product. Of course people are going to say bad things about it, it's incomplete and very broken at this point. Mind you, if you are going to buy into things that don't even exist yet, does that mean you are the type who is going to decide on your next game console by the preliminary marketing specifications of the console without taking into consideration developer support and the final technical specs of the retail product?

Let's all face it, the reason us geeks don't, in general, buy Macs, music on-line, software, or manuals is that we feel this sort of entitlement that we know how to get around so many things and it becomes a fun game. There was that 'secret' BBS that had all the copyprotection hacks for Kings Quest and if you are 'smart', you can use Linux for FREE and don't have to pay the 'Microsoft Tax'.

It has been engrained in us that we don't HAVE to pay because we can figure out how not to and sub-contiously, paying, and especailly OVER-paying is analogous to being a non-tech who has no other choice and so we reject it with all out beings.

So get the hell over yourselves. You know what, the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, and Macs are awesome, 'premium prices' be damned. Take a look at teh 64-bit all-in-one iMac G5 that starts at $1,300 including a gorgeous display. If you've never been to the Apple Store, do yourself a favor and go.

So to answer the question, no, I wouldn't switch because the x86 architecture is a thing of the past living in the present. The best computing experience these days is coming out from Apple and that includes both the software and the hardware.

Yeah, you're right, with the exception of a few CPU-level bugs along the way, the BSOD hasn't been built into the CPU, but that's not to say that it's always Windows' fault.

Other things that go into the Windows world's instability include:El-Cheapo hardware du jour. This includes many, many x86 mobo manufacturers, as well as bottom of the barrel RAM and PSU suppliers. Guess what: If you're truly talking about making something the same as a $2,000 Mac for half the price (hyperbole, I know), then you're engaging in some of this, and it is where a lot of the BSODs originate.

As a follow-up to section 1: shitty driver support, particularly in the 9x days when everything, not just video, had an easy chance to cause system-level problems.

When people say x86 in a debate such as this, they generally mean the platform as a whole, not the cost of the chip. A Pentium 4 chip by itself is as useless to me as a G5 by itself. But to say that Linux or some other non-Windows OS is going to be magically immune to the cheap-ass, no-QA hardware that you frequently encounter in the x86 world is completely off base.

No doubt; my Girlfriend's gaming PC (A mac is her primary machine) cost me just over $600 with a very nice video card, although I got the video card for $7 because an old one had died under warranty.

An $800 computer will NOT have dual processors, a DVD burner, optical digital audio output, slots for 8GB of RAM expansion, both forms of Firewire, GigE, etc. I can build a solid, reliable computer for $800, but I'm not going to try and pretend that it's remotely comparable to a dual 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac. This

Yeah, but the point stands that you can get a good-performing, stable, and expandable x86 minitower for about $1000, and Apple simply does not have a model which compares.

Instead Apple customers are encouraged to spend $2000 for "workstation" machine. If one does not need dualprocs, PCI-X, or a crapload of RAM slots, it is a fair complaint that you shouldn't have to pay for them.

Hardware failure will bring a Linux box down as quickly as it will a Windows box, the only difference is the screen indication, with Linux, you get a Kernel Panic (in most cases), while in Windows you get a BSOD.

I have found in corporate environment where the user is regulated from doing anything stupid, the most common failure is hardware. One of the sales computers blue screen this morning. Do I blame Microsoft for the BSOD, even though it would give me brownie points here, after reviewing the machine in the lab, I put the blame on the RAM maker, simply replaced the stick and the employee was back working.

Just because a windows box fails doesn't mean it's Microsoft's fault.

Now to answer the article's question, I wouldn't switch to OS X, but I would probably buy a copy and run it in the lab. If I find uses for it, I may deploy it, but in the end, an operating system is a tool to get a job done, you simply use what you deem to be the best tool for the job. Which for me, in most cases is Windows, though I use *nix variants for certain tasks, where Windows is just not cost effective.

Likewise my OSX has _never_ crashed, but I did get to visit all those bad sites, treaded all over the shop like a drunk, and didn't have to bother with a NAT, firewall, virus scanner, heck i randomly open attachments full of windows virii, I'm raw on the Internet and nothings gotten in.

Tiny cache? x86 processors have larger L1 caches than most other processors. The L2 cache size is usually pretty puny though, and few PCs support L3 cache (the AMD K6/2+ and K6/3+ had onboard L2 and the system L2 became L3, that's all I can think of in that category just now.) AMD made several very nice x86-compatible processors. The lack of registers is pretty lame but it is addressed in x86-64 and for many programs it is not that big a deal anyway because both intel and AMD (and their assorted competitors, as well) have implemented register renaming and other tricks to improve the speed of context switches and the shuffling of data due to register starvation.

The PPC 750 (the "G3") had 512k or 1MB of L2 cache running at bus speed (66 or 100 MHz). (Source: Apple [apple.com] - Note: This page shows L2 cache to be 512k and 300MHz to be an available option. The 300MHz PPC750 had a 1MB L2 cache).

It's the base concept of not being able to move or rename a file once it is open. This is the same whether you are talking about a simple text file, or your system files for the OS.

Most filesystems (fat, ntfs, and of course all unix filesystems) have an abstraction between a directory entry, and a filesystem wide number that identifies a file -- in unix filesystem terminology that is the "inode". The problem is that windows does not use that natural abstraction.

In unix, if a program has a file open, you can "delete" that file -- wait it's not gone yet[1]. What happens under the covers, is that your filename in a directory points to an inode. Each inode has a count of the number of references to itself. When you open the file that reference count for the inode is incremented. So if there is one program with the file open, and the inode is referenced in one directory, the reference count is now two. Once that count goes to zero, the inode is unlinked -- which means deleted, but since "delete" is multi-step in unix, you need more terms.

[1] This is a great way to work with temporary files -- once you open and delete it, nobody else can access the file and many security threats with temp files are completely avoided.

Now you have a system file that needs updating. You delete the file (which just removes one reference from the directory) and the system still holds a reference to the inode and continues operating as before. Then, you write the new updated file to the same directory with the same name, but it doesn't cause a conflict because the new file goes into a different inode. Once the files are replaced, restart the individual application and the update is finished.

On windows, to update a system file that can not be closed during the operation of the system, you put the files in a special location with a script that specifies their desired location. Every time windows boots it runs those scripts that replaces files before they are opened. That is why windows will always require more reboots than unix based OSes.

There is more to updating system files than that of couse. For instance, most unix servers do not run a graphical environment on the server and every version of windows since NT boots into a graphical graphical environment. Most Unix based systems use the Xwindows system for their graphical environment, and an update to that environment only requires a restart of Xwindows not the entire system -- which is important if you are running any services on your computer that people depend upon.

"Thats all fine and dandy, but doesnt' change the fact winodws still needs to be rebooted:)"

I was showing why windows will never be able to catch up in requiring as few reboots as unix OSes. If you didn't catch that, please read my previous post again, it was kinda long...

"And says windows is useing an outdated not so good filesystem."

Why do you say that?

NTFS supports all of the unix sematics natively. In fact, everything is a file -- even directories and "inodes".

You have a combined inode list and journal in the MFT file.

(in fact, the design of ext2 and 3 keeps the inodes close to the data with block groups spread out over the disk. (these block groups also provide a level of backup information that that helps greatly during filesystem recovery on bad disks -- but you have backups, right?)

So, if you implement NTFS so that the MFT file is intentionally fragmented to put the inode data close to the data blocks, you could have the same performance advantages ext2/3 does for reads on large files (I'm not sure what XFS does to get its speed advantages though). Or whatever else might be a better layout. But you wouldn't have the recovery advantages of ext2/3's block groups though.)

If the FLOSS community could just fork NTFS from the specs published before microsoft changed the FS and didn't publish the specs, NTFS could be one of the premiere filesystems in Linux. But alas, NTFS support in Linux and OSX is not about optimizing for production use, but for compatability with windows systems.

Fragmentation can be overcome by a better implementation like Suse's enhancements to ReiserFS does in the 2.6 kernel. (Did that make it in yet? I haven't been following LKML for the last several months.)

Just like ext2/3 for windows might not be as reliable because it might not follow the same integrity procedures that the linux kernel implementation does -- almost by requirement since since Linux's ext2/3 implementation is gpl, and I don't believe the MS FS SDK is gpl compatible.

While there are plenty of advantages to x86 hardware, windows did run at one point on the Power architecture. Perhaps a better question would be, if Microsoft ported Windows to the Power 6, or more interestingly, the Cell, would you switch? I like Mips and Arm also, and for low profile computers, which most people should be using anyway, these other architectures are great. Why the fixation on x86 or Windows for that matter?

I would much rather see a variety of devices and architectures coexisting in an env

If Apple switched to x86 (well, x86-64 now), they wouldn't let it run on your commodity boxes. You'd have an expensive (although less so than PPC) x86-64 box with OpenFirmware BIOS and a few Apple ASICs to provide the same functionality that Apple has on the PPC. You'd be buying Apple hardware to run it on, without a doubt.

There are several reasons for this:

1. Apple makes a lot of money on their hardware.2. OS X has limited driver support, opening up to all breeds of hardware would slow the development of the OS down and reduce stability.3. There's stuff you have on Macs that just doesn't exist with your typical PC BIOS, stuff like target-mode and netboot (much better implmentation than PXE).4. Apple are about the total experience of the platform, putting OS X on your Dell with it's rat's-nest of cabling is something that makes Steve Jobs cry. Steve has a VISION, and a huge part of it is massive reduction in cabling.

Don't hold your breath for OS X on commodity x86 boxes, it'll NEVER happen. Apple might switch to x86-64 someday if the PPC architecture hits a dead-end, but I find it more likely that the opposite is true.

I will also venture to say that the submitter of this story has something wrong with him if he prefers x86 over PowerPC. The PPC architecture is beautiful, simple, and clean. And Apple isn't the only company selling PowerPC hardware.

Finding software for OS X/x86 will be just as hard, if not HARDER than it is for PPC. I don't own a Mac, actually, I use x86 hardware at home, but admin about 200 Macs at work. We don't have trouble finding software for them at all. There's good software in almost every category for OS X, and I've found that Apple's free development tools and NeXT-derived libraries lead even shareware apps to be of great quality and usability.

I know that EFI BIOS is coming, but it's still not here. I've been enjoying a 32-bit BIOS with a GUI bootloader, network booting, single-image support, and no hassles since the Blue and White G3 came out in 1999.

Most Mac setups have a LOT simpler cabling than their PC counterparts. I set these things up for a living. Macs typically install in about half the time from 'boxed' to 'bootup'. I've got a G4 on my desk at work, and an ADC monitor. My monitor gets signal, power, and USB on ONE cable to the CPU. The powered speakers get power and signal on one Y-cable, as opposed to a stereo cable, a left-to-right cable, and a power cable on the PCs. I've got ONE cable coming from the back of my screen to my keyboard, which has a built-in hub for the mouse and my flash-reader. Macs have a lot less cables when properly purchased and set up.

As for 'screwed when the monitor gives out', there are NO machines that Apple ships without external video. I just bought an iBook for my sister and she hooked it up to her monitor witht he included VGA adapter. My desktop G4 at work has both ADC and DVI out. Even the iMacs have VGA-out.

Where's the HUGE price difference? I don't buy 'low end' hardware, be it Mac or PC. Once you get to the 'good stuff' with name-brand components, quality hard drives and memory, and all the fixin's the price difference on both sides is close to zero. Apple's iBooks actually beat Dell laptops hands-down on price and value. The $300 difference on desktops like the iMac is easily accounted for in power savings (which also carry to lower AC bills), high-quality LCD screens, and time to setup and maintain. Once again, I sound like a fanboy, but I'm out there doing price/performance comparisons for my work all day.

What you're saying is that you have a bunch of proprietary hardware with funny cables. Many of us avoided macs in the 68k and early PPC days specifically to keep away from shit like that. Every mac I've seen had about the same amount of cabling as a PC, as the other poster was saying. In fact I have an apple keyboard on my PC because I love it so, even if I do have to open and clean it periodically. I have hair on [the backs of] my hands:) and even that ends up in my keyboard, let alone crumbs and stuff.

The new iMac ain't the old; many of the components can be replaced by the user [apple.com].Unfortunately, the same can't be said of the eMac.

And for what it's worth, one of the reasons we got an iMac in the first place (the original style, lime-colored, been with us for 5 years) was because my wife wanted a computer that I couldn't take apart and mess with:-)

Secondly, the 'total experience' of the platform seems to include a "Well, now where do I find *software* for the damn thing?" right out of the box as well

That's funny, I got a Powerbook a little over a year ago and I've never had trouble finding software. Ever. For one thing, most of the stuff I use on Debian and FreeBSD runs just fine on OSX. For another thing, there's a large and active OSX development community.

There are, of course, specialized applications that just don't exist for OSX.

"Go ahead -- reply and list all the things you use regularly that aren't available, or for which good or better substitutes aren't available, for OSX."

OK - here goes:

Enterprise-class or SMB CRM software, such as Goldmine, ACT, Siebel, or PeopleSoft; non web-based, so you can skip your "well, just use salesforce.com" reply. Outlook has and always will suck eggs, so the Mac Outlook is as much a terrible option on Apple's platform as Microsoft's. Apple never has had and never will have a robust, comprehen

The Oracle E-Business Suite is available for MacOS X and has both enterprise class CRM and accounting software. While the CRM software might not be in the same league as Siebel, it has other benefits as tight integration with Accounts Receivables and Daily Business Intelligence -- which can save you from implementing costly high-maintenance data warehouses. The accounting software is just about the best there is.

Anyway most enterprises I know choose to run their enterprise wide applications on UNIX-boxes or on Linux -- even though they use Windows for everything else. I should think a Mac is just as capable of connecting to these as any Wintel.

Any time anyone mentions a platform the same thing always comes up. The people from alternate platforms (like OS X, or Linux) make arguments about why their platform is better. The we get a bunch of cry-baby XP users making posts like yours. My point? WHO THE FUCK CARES WHICH PLATFORM IS BETTER!? Use the one you like! Done!

Thats funny, I have this HP bluetooth printer, and getting it to work has been a major pain in the ass on two different XP laptops. When I use the bluetooth detection wizard in OS X to setup the printer (default drivers), it just works.

The thing you have to remember about OS X is that things that are supposed to work with it always work, easily. A large number of the things that are supposed to work with Windows are a pain in the ass to set up.

All you have to do is make sure your device is compatible with OS X. With the very large number of printers, digital cameras, digital camcorders, phones, and PDAs that are compatible, that is usually a pretty trivial task. As least with OS X you know that if the thing is supposed to work, its usually just a matter of plugging it in. With Windows its still plug and pray.

Yes, they do control what goes INTO their machines, but it's not like they make it all, and it's not like the hardware they use is so completely unlike what's common on the x86 platform.

I think they could achive a lot by simply not worrying about supporting the kind of legacy hardware Windows always strives to, and focusing on just the common x86 hardware. nVidia & ATI pretty much cover most of the graphics chips out there on modern hardware. USB device support's already there. There's not THAT much to have to support to just work on the average desktop, and support for more exotic hardware can come later. If some hardware's too shoddy or unreliable to maintain the Mac standard, then don't support it!

You could get that kind of stability by only supporting a subset of PC hardware, and it would still be cheaper than mac; For example, you'd only support the most worthy chipsets, like nforce for amd (it may not be the fastest, but it seems to be the most stable) and intel chipsets for their processors, only supporting the big-name video cards, et cetera. Another way would be to publish an API and stick with it so that developers could write drivers that wouldn't explode all over the place.

if os x did come for x86 and you had windows already, you'd be a fool not to at least give it a try.... however, its NEVER going to happen and here's why:

apple is a hardware company. their OS is a major incentive to use the hardware. releasing for x86 would be stupid. i wouldn't expect this unless it was like a last-stand measure right before going out of biz, and that's not gonna happen.:-)

>This would kill apple however because nobody in>their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac >when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac >OS on it as well

apple is not as expensive as it used to be you know...today you can buy the (delicious) imac g5 with the 17'' tft screen for $1300 -- and you get a 64-bit machine. An athlon64 with similar specs doesn't cost much lower, and you don't get the all-in-one design.And $3000 for a dual 2.5ghz,64 bit is a good price. Definetely at the low end of the dual market.

If you can't utilize the full-power in a machine, or if you will not utilize said power in your everyday operations, then all power in excess of what will be utilized is useless power.
Now, on a rather different topic, if you're trying to suggest that a $1300 Athlon system (assuming that you're going for the best cost/parts ratio you can find and consequently build it yourself) is comparable to an equivalently priced imac G5, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.
Now, I am not including the price of a monitor, which, assuming you don't already have one, would be an additional cost in the Athlon system. However, in terms of both upgradeability and utilizable performance in currently available consumer-oriented games and applications, I would suggest that the Athlon system as stated above would absolutely kick the teeth out of the imac.
If you want to talk about the advantages of the Mac OS, talk about the OS, but don't for a minute suggest the price of hardware for Macs is somehow equivalent to PCs. The upgradeability issue alone shows that PCs win hands-down in this category.
An example is in order (fast-forward to this hypothetical future scenario): If I want to do a major hardware upgrade on an imac I purchased a year ago, I'm basically out of luck. Thus, the most cost and time-effective solution is to essentially get a new machine. With a PC that I assembled a year ago, I can easily take whatever component out that I want and replace it with an updated component. This long-term cost factor must also be considered when comparing the differences between the two platforms. Thus, in my estimation, the PC is still the clear winner as far as hardware is concerned in the lower-cost categories.

"I upgraded a supposedly unupgradable, all in one purple iMac with a 120G HD and all the RAM it will hold."

You'd have fun if you tried to install a hard drive larger than 137 gb, as the ATA controllers of the time didn't support drives that big. I popped an SATA contoller in my PC that sounds like it's about as old as your iMac (ca. 1997), and now it has a 160 gb drive. I also popped a gigabit network card in, and now it's great file server.

Installing an SATA controller in an iMac from that time is impossible, the 160 gb drive would be impossible, and the gigabit interface is impossible on any iMac. In addition, the firewalling requirements of my server have caused me to install a total of 3 network interfaces-- this, too, is impossible on an iMac.

It might be 8 years old, but my NFS performance is about 15-20 mb/s. That's about the best you can do with NFS over ethernet. The hard drive performance is about 2% better than my desktop machine because the chipset in the SATA card is better than the on board SATA controller in my desktop machine, despite the fact that it runs a much faster OS with much faster hardware. As opposed to your iMac, which will be stuck at ATA/33 for the rest of time.

And I don't care what it looks like. It's tucked away under my desk where even I can barely see it. It just sits there working perfectly.

"In a few years, even the most upgraded computer will be hopelessly obsolete and will be replaced if you need/want to run the latest and greatest software"

That's odd. I could have sworn my server was running up to date everything. Either you're full of it, or I recall the versions of my stuff incorrectly.

"especially games."

Games on a Mac. Right.

"Not having to worry about any of those 70,000+ known malwares out for wintel may also allow you to sleep better"

My server is a fully patched OpenBSD machine. Everything else is not.

You're mistaking what you find useful from what others find useful. Just because you would derive no utility from an upgradable computer doesn't mean no one else would. You obviously don't feel like operating a server; I can respect that. However, I want a server, and if I hadn't bought an upgradable machine in 1997 I would have to get a new computer now. I knew I'd be doing something like this back then, so I got the upgradable machine. I know I'll be doing something like this 5 years from now, so my new desktop machine is also upgradable.

There are many other reasons to get an upgradable machine.

Apple is good for three things: immutable desktop machines, powerhaus workstations, and laptops. I have an Apple laptop and I'm happy with it. But Apple doesn't want to sell you an affordable, upgradable desktop. So some of us just have to look elsewhere.

/. is known for having a few people in the audience with less than up-to-date information. So I'd just like to clear some things up.

- Macs don't have a $2000 start up price tag, they actually start at $799 with the eMac, for portables $1099. Those of which are better spec'ed than low-end PCs.
- The second point is that there are no more G3's from apple, it's been that way for a while, plus no apple computer is spec'd below 1GHz.
- You can not get any apple computer without firewire. (It's an odd one I know, but I sometimes see some rattle about firewire cards and macs.)
- OS X, runs smoothly on a G3 700MHz, it runs smoothly on a G4 400MHz, a G4 1GHz won't leave you waiting in any application including Alias' Maya. Hence you don't need a dual 2.5GHz G5 to 'test' OS X, a second hand mac is usually just fine to try it out. (If you look hard enough, there are people giving away old powermac G4s.)

The final mistake, which is a good one, is that developers have not ignored the 64 bit G5, the reality is that developers have embraced it, and in cross platform apps, it's actually been the PC waiting for 64 bit updates from vendors such as Adobe, this when adobe apps were updated long ago for the G5.

The logic that Apple computers wouldn't sell, if PC's ran their software is also another fallacy. PC's already run iTunes and iPods, this hasn't affected the apple market share (it's actually grown because people aren't taboo to the brand anymore).

Additionally apple don't have any monopoly on the OS market or the hardware market, anyone that doesn't -want- to buy an apple, simply doesn't, it's not like windows software on x86. In a world where large purchases are governed entirely from the bottom line, you'll find that OS X on Intel would have little effect on apple computer sales.

OS X, runs smoothly on a G3 700MHz, it runs smoothly on a G4 400MHz, a G4 1GHz won't leave you waiting in any application including Alias' Maya. Hence you don't need a dual 2.5GHz G5 to 'test' OS X, a second hand mac is usually just fine to try it out.

That has not be my experience. Even a dual G5 feels sluggish coming from a _single_ P4. Did you miss the MacDate review yesterday [anandtech.com]? Here is a quote:

Although the performance of OS X on the dual 2GHz G5 system that I'd been running was definitely acceptable, there is definitely room for improvement. The overall responsiveness of the system was decent, but go back to using a top-of-the-line PC in Windows for a few minutes, and you definitely feel a bit sluggish on the G5.

The reviewer paid $3,000 for the dual G5! A nice top of the line x86 is around $1,200. I built my own x86 for about $700 (not including monitor) and it just feels so much faster then a single G5. Also, to get better performance out of a dual G5 with the latest Mac OS, you need a bunch of memory that further drives up the cost. The reviewer put 4GB, the wimpy 512MB that comes with a $3,000 system is not acceptable.

I would purchase Mac OS for x86 and give it a try. I would not dump Linux for it, buy I would certainly dump MS Windows. Maybe Apple should rethink their business and make software their "cash cow" like MS did (it has made MS billions). I bet Apple would make tons more cash with the x86 market then they could ever dream of. It could also be a selling point for their proprietary hardware. I am sure that if people used Mac OS x86 and really liked it that some of them would make the switch from x86 to Apple.

The overall responsiveness of the system was decent, but go back to using a top-of-the-line PC in Windows for a few minutes, and you definitely feel a bit sluggish on the G5.

It's OS X's quartz rendering. There's going to be a performance hit for all that eye candy no matter what kind of hardware it's running on. If you ran it on x86 hardware it wouldn't be as snappy as Windows. But Windows feels awful clunky after using OS X.

Most Mac users are completely disconnected from the larger PC market. Apple's prices have been the same since the mid-90s, so they assume that's how the rest of the world works.

This is completely wrong. I am looking for something to do digital video on and the new G5 iMac is very competitive. With 1GB Ram, 250GB HDD, DVD burner, 20" LCD and Final Cut it is $2300 and this includes a high end graphics card, TV out and some nice software. For comparison a Dell Precision with 1GB Ram, 250GB HDD, DVD burner, 20" LCD, Adobe Video Collection and graphics card is $3940

Of course the Dell Precision is extensible which makes it more attractive but if you can get a machine with the same spec as the G5 iMac for less, good luck. Its easy to say that Macs are crazy expensive and Apple is still in the '90s but the facts don't bare this out at all.

Nevermind that you're comparing an iMac to a corporate-class workstation. If you'd configured a Dimension instead of a Precision, you'd probably not have had anything to post about, sorry to say. I just got done refuting someone else's claims that "Apples aren't any more expensive than similarly equipped PCs" on The Inquirer. Oddly enough, they did the same thing you did: went straight to Dell, picked a corporate class machine. Sadly, the other people made some gross misjudgements to jack up the PC price even more, by configuring the Dell with twice the RAM, more addons, etc...
But still, when you get down to it, you're comparing Apples and oranges.
Back on topic, even if Apple did release OSX on x86 architecture, it'd likely run poorly (at least as compared to OSX on a Mac). It's just not in their best interests to release a "perfect" version of OSX on x86 architecture, simply because I doubt Apple makes its money selling software.
If there's no compelling reason for people to buy the machines (style only goes so far, OS and other software tow the load), there's very little profit potential for Apple in releasing OSX on PC hardware.

I too used to think lists like this made some sort of sense. But they don't. The only way this list makes sense is if you are a computer expert who uses Linux (or pirates Windows), AND you are building this computer for yourself, AND you can get the parts all from the same place or inexpensively shipped, AND you somehow managed to get all the right parts out of the dozens of different types of cases, motherboards, and CPUs, AND you know how to put them together correctly AND all the miscellaneous cheap parts you bought all work together and none are faulty and need to be replaced AND etcetera ad infinitum...

Everyone who makes a list like this is just wasting his time. The list only makes sense to you, unless you are in the habit of spending many hours ordering parts and building computers for other people FOR FREE... If you wanted to make any profit at all by selling that particular system to someone, there's this little thing called economics that gets in the way. You'll have to double the cost of all the parts, add compensation for shipping, and then bill for labor. Suddenly you have a machine that costs double the price of a low-end Mac (eMac) and you still haven't even added any software!

And lets be realistic here, 80% of the populace is either not ready for Linux or simply won't be happy with it (in its current state). Even if you do discount the cost of the software, to duplicate the usability of a Mac or even Windows you or someone else will have to spend X amount of hours setting this system up so all the hardware works and all the necessary software is installed to do the same basic tasks that can be easily done on either Mac OS X or Windows.

Just as a little experiment, why don't you go ahead and build yourself one of these systems from scratch. Just be sure and keep careful track of all the time you use from planning to ordering to assembly to installation and configuration of the software. When you're finally done and have a moderately usable system, multiply the number of hours it took you by whatever you get paid at your current job. Even if you don't get paid much you will probably be shocked at the number that comes up. Your time just spent finding each part will probably negate the "$40 less" that you think you can get all those parts for.

If you are a geek who uses Linux and you have free time on your hands then building a computer from scratch can be an entertaining, educational and satisfying experience. It's loads of fun, I've even done it myself a few times. But trying to compare this list to the actual market price of any pre-built computer with all necessary software installed... it's just insane. Another thing, you do not need a $2000 Mac to get the same functionality, usability and apparent speed as a PC half the price, this is a myth today. Macs simply cannot be directly compared to PCs speed-wise for anything but a few specific operations that only a small segment of the population uses their computer for. For most poeple, a Mac that costs $800-$1200 will be more usable, safer to use on the Internet, and more fun to use than any PC in the same price range, no matter if it's running Windows or Linux.

End of rant. I hate older Macs and Mac OS 7/8/9 and have been running Linux at home for years, so don't even think of calling me a Mac zealot. I'm just tired of seeing these BS "cost" lists being taken seriously here. The general reader and the moderaters need to come to the realization that they literally make no sense for anyone besides the original poster, unless the value of your time is zero and you already have all the requisite knowledge.

Me too I would switch in a heartbeat. however the days of Windows as the pre eminent gaming OS might be numbered.

Latest rumor out of a major games house (Not sure which one as I got the "tip" at the Linuxshow) is that the game companies are working on using LiveCD technology for games. They can tweak the kernel and the ATI / Nvidia drivers (source code issues goes away since they will be supplying binaries only) and presto you have an almost console type platform for their specific needs.

To quickly answer why they have the menus at the top of the screen: Fitts' law, which describes the amount of time that it takes to move a mouse pointer to an object on the screen, indicates that it's easier to get to the menu items at the top, since you can move your mouse pointer up with no regard for missing the menu bar. Because you run up against the edge of the screen, that parameter is effectively infinite, and reduces the amount of fine controlling you have to do to select your item.

You can also do further reading about such user interface decisions in the book 'The Humane Interface' by Jef Raskin, one of the orginal developers of the Macintosh and its interface. Their decisions for dragging disks to the trash, and having a one button mouse really DID make sense at the time, but a lot of those decisions are lost on us now, especially if we don't have a long Mac background.

Not at all. In fact, the problem is seriously and badly amplified with such a large monitor. The elements that you're trying to point to are now even smaller, and you have to go further to get to them. In such an instance, having something that you can throw your mouse pointer up at should be relatively faster, as long as you haven't attempted to eat a rock and set your mouse movement speed or acceleration very low.

An even better system at that point would actually be NeXTStep's implementation of applicati

Linux is first and foremost an operating system for x86 and x86_64. Now because x86 isn't the most demanding architecture out there, anything you implement on there easily maps to features of other popular architectures (SPARC, PPC, s390, IA64).

The problem is that the drivers are largely written by kernel developers, and that's about it (with the exception of some lovely folks at Intel, HP, Creative and NVidia). Because of this, you only get what's

I'm of the same opinion as the grandparent, so I will respond to your question. I would most likely buy a P5 OSX over a G6 OSX. Here's my reasoning:

1. Right now I favor my dual G5 over my dual Xeon because:a. my dual G5 is plugged into a 23" display and my dual Xeon is plugged into a poor 19" display. If I upgraded to one of the new displays, ADC support is dropped and a P5 box will likely have hardware that supports the nice DVI display.b. Most of my commercial software licenses are for my G5. This is actually a strike against switching to the P5 over the G6.c. The dual G5 box is significantly quieter than the dual Xeon box. Again, this is a strike against switching.

2. Cost of hardware: Umm... my dual Xeon with SCSI hard drives cost 30% less than my dual G5 for approximately the same processor performance (better drive performance). I'll assume the same cost difference applies in the hypothetical scenario.

3. There exist very good compilers for x86. I ran some benchmarks against both of my boxes and the Xeon outperformed the G5 in areas where the Xeon should have lost hands down. Inspecting the assembly code I realized that gcc (for C++ especially, but even for C) generates much better x86 code than PPC code. In fact, the C++ PPC code generation was terrible (particularly for large array/martix math). Intel's compiler is even better for C++ than g++, and the lack of an alternative on PPC makes the gap even larger.

This really irritates me. The PPC architecture *does* have advantages over x86. However, they are almost completely unrealized due to the lack of a decent compiler (metrowerks on PPC is decent, and fares well againt g++ on x86, but doesn't compare to intel's x86 compiler).

If (3) was fixed, I may be willing to accept (2) and then change my answer, particularly because my commercial software licenses more than make up the difference.

I really like OS X. As far as driver support, it works with my wacom tablet, my microsoft mouse, my sandisk usb drive, my iRiver MP3 player, my Canon camera, and my Epson scanner. It failed to work with my Labtec usb headphones/microphone (which doesn't matter since I can't play CounterStrike on it anyway), my Canon scanner (which happened to be one of only two Canoscan models not supported--that irritated me), and my USB wireless adapter (which I tried just to see if it worked. I already have a wireless card. Besides, the USB fucker bluescreened my windows laptop on multiple occasions, so I wouldn't call its windows support great either). I would recommend OSX iMacs to people like my grandmother as and OSX powerbooks to fellow CS students.